Query - regarding announcement posted in latest update of Hornbill Core (256) - Sites to be renamed to "Office Locations"

[Adam Toms]

Hi all,

I've seen the latest updated posted regarding Hornbill Core (256) But as that topic is closed I can't post a query regarding this.

One of the changes is to rename "Sites" to "Office Locations".

We do a lot of our ticket routing for our field staff based on site location. Whilst I appreciate this update is being made to the Hornbill Core element and not Service Manager, could this impact the current routing of our tickets based on site location and our query of get all all sites in the Intelligent capture of our tickets if the core is changed to Office Locations?

Thanks in advance.

[Gerry]

Hello @Adam Toms

Sorry for no previous response to your questions.   So in answer to your actual question, the answer is no, there will be no impact on your current operating practices and queries, its the exact same data, we are just cleaning up the terminology as it seems to confuse a lot of (even our own) people.   If there would have been material change in functionally, we would have given you advance notice and provided a transition of some form.

This is a simple terminology change to better reflect the purpose of Sites.  We have some customers that use Hornbill for things outside of the more traditional IT Service Management use cases, where Sites are a commonly used term. Unfortunately, Hornbill is not *just* an ITSM solution, we have customers that use Hornbill for external customer support, and sometimes from an external Organisation perspective there is also the notion of Sites.  There has been a lot of confusion around what "Sites" (as they were previously called) relate to.  So to clarify this, we waned to draw a distinction between Sites as in, your company and its various physical locations, and Sites, as in organisations external to your organisation who you support (when doing external support) who also have the notion of Sites. 

As what we previously called "Sites" *ONLY* Relates to your internal organisation structure in terms of Locations or Offices, we decided it was better to rename these to help pave the way for further clarity between these two quite different use cases (Your orgs Sites vs your customers Sites when using an an external support context). 

And having debated this internally a bit more we are likely to change this terminology from Office Locations to juts Locations because a number of people felt, in relation to milti-site internal support there are Locations (being physical places where you might find both people and/or equipment) that you support which are not "offices" as such, for example "Sites" in your particular example, or oil-rigs, or venues or other business specific terminology.  So we will be changing this once again to just "Locations"

Regardless of what we call it by default, if any existing customer does not like the default terminology they are of course free to use the translations and just change it, as many customers have in the past.  However, for us "Locations" would appear to be a sensible, generic catch all that works for all highlighted scenarios. 

Hopefully that makes some sense. 

Gerry
 

 

 

[Adam Toms]

Thanks @Gerry

For your feedback on this. I could see the benefits of doing this, from a wider customer support perspective. Internal and external customer support. I was just concerned with how we've adopted our site routing by queue, whether we'd need to change anything to allow that functionality to continue, thanks for confirming that we wouldn't need to change how we use this feature.